Deciding whether or not a license contains any legally invalid terms (or terms whose practical semantics differ from your intent) is an incredibly difficult problem. This is a job for a skilled copyright lawyer. You wouldn't ask strangers on the internet, "Do the schematics for this rocket I'm building look like they'd be able to escape Earth's gravity and withstand re-entry into Earth's atmosphere?" Neither should you be asking a layman for careful legal consideration of your license terms.
Carefully examine the issues raised in How can a "crayon" license be a problem? to see what can go wrong when drafting your own license terms.
Without addressing the legal validity of the terms, I see several practical issues:
Seven out of nine in your license related to tedious bookkeeping of lists of files and don't actually relate to what copyright rights are being licensed. In practice, virtually all free and open source licenses solve this problem by simply marking the files themselves with a comment along the lines of "This file is under [license X]" or using a separate mapping file if the files themselves cannot be marked (e.g., for non-text files like images). You're adding a ton of extra complexity; I do not see what benefit you get from this.
The license terms themselves are not FLOSS terms, since they forbid redistribution of the work expect when included in a larger project.
Consider using a legally-vetted open source license instead. Not only will you will have certainty that you license legally operates as intended, but also everyone who uses your licensed work will automatically understand a baseline of what is allowed and what is not allowed.